Candyce Hamel1, Alan Michaud2, Micere Thuku2, Becky Skidmore2, Adrienne Stevens2, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit3, Chantelle Garritty4. 1. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada; University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia 21000. Electronic address: cahamel@ohri.ca. 2. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada. 3. Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria. 4. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa, ON K1H 8L6, Canada; University of Split, School of Medicine, Split, Croatia 21000.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori-defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited. RESULTS: Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence. CONCLUSION: Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products. METHODS: A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori-defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited. RESULTS: Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence. CONCLUSION: Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.
Authors: Randy A Jones; Rachel Hirschey; Grace Campbell; Mary E Cooley; Darryl Somayaji; Robin Lally; Erik K Rueter; Mary Magee Gullatte Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Randy A Jones; Rachel Hirschey; Grace Campbell; Mary E Cooley; Darryl Somayaji; Robin Lally; Erik K Rueter; Mary Magee Gullatte Journal: Oncol Nurs Forum Date: 2021-11-01 Impact factor: 2.172
Authors: Laura Lorena Castiblanco; María Jesús García de Yébenes; Jose María Martín Martín; Loreto Carmona Journal: Rheumatol Int Date: 2022-08-18 Impact factor: 3.580
Authors: Aireen Wingert; Jennifer Pillay; Michelle Gates; Samantha Guitard; Sholeh Rahman; Andrew Beck; Ben Vandermeer; Lisa Hartling Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2021-05-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Diederik R de Boer; Femke Hoekstra; Kimberley I M Huetink; Trynke Hoekstra; Leonie A Krops; Florentina J Hettinga Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health Date: 2021-06-11 Impact factor: 3.390
Authors: Livia Fernandes Probst; Ana Tereza Gomes Guerrero; Andréia Insabralde de Queiroz Cardoso; Antonio Jose Grande; Mariana Garcia Croda; James Venturini; Maria Cristina de Camargo Fonseca; Anamaria Mello Miranda Paniago; Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto; Sandra Maria do Vale Leone de Oliveira Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2021-08-07